Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 78 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 2337

Thread: Donald Trump POTUS...still...?

  1. #31  
    White Star Line is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    10,111
    He's doing an excellent job of making America into the western world's biggest laughing stock
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #32  
    lfcstlouis is online now Caution advised, may not be actual saint
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24,207
    Quote Originally Posted by angelYNWA View Post
    will be interesting what happens with the Supreme Court and the case on gerrymandering.
    From the whispers around DC, it sounds like the stolen SCOTUS seat will be the decider, for legal gerrymandering.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #33  
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    You know what is a huge threat to Russia? NATO forces on its borders and US missiles pointed straight at it from Romania. It is almost unfathomable how the US is so aggressive towards Russia in terms of military but US scream at the thought of Russian hackers.

    There's are many more hacking on behalf of the US than Russia.
    I honestly couldn't give any less of a **** about what's a threat to Russia.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #34  
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,794
    So Ossoff lost. 4th loss in a row for the centrist Dems, I believe.

    The Dems aren't learning the lessons. Do corporates donate to the Dems and dictate their campaigns, to make sure the lessons aren't learnt? i.e. Make sure republicans win?

    With everything going on in Washington, this should've be an open goal. Maybe a more aggressive campaign could've bridged the 4 points.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #35  
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    I haven't said its ok for Russia to invade have I? Can you say where I said that? I just said the US has no business interfering given it is the most aggressive country in history and invades more nations than any military ever.
    US, like any country in the world, will do whatever it has the resources to do. There is nothing America has done now or in the past 60-70 years that another country in its position wouldn't do. It is every country's "business" to look after its interests and to expand its influence as much as it can. That ambition is only curtailed by the availability of resources and the strength of the resistance against it.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #36  
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    29,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Luises-Finger View Post
    So Ossoff lost. 4th loss in a row for the centrist Dems, I believe.

    The Dems aren't learning the lessons. Do corporates donate to the Dems and dictate their campaigns, to make sure the lessons aren't learnt? i.e. Make sure republicans win?

    With everything going on in Washington, this should've be an open goal. Maybe a more aggressive campaign could've bridged the 4 points.
    are you really saying that a Democrat not winning in GEORGIA! was such a shock? The fact that a crimson red state like that was even in play shows how weak the Republicans are, It would be like the Tories almost winning in Liverpool.

    Previous Georgia elections have had Republicans win with at least a 20point majority, now it's less than 4. Looks strong and stable to me...
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #37  
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    29,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortigen View Post
    US, like any country in the world, will do whatever it has the resources to do. There is nothing America has done now or in the past 60-70 years that another country in its position wouldn't do. It is every country's "business" to look after its interests and to expand its influence as much as it can. That ambition is only curtailed by the availability of resources and the strength of the resistance against it.
    Just as Russia/Soviet Union has done, and the British, French and virtually every other European power has done in the past and we are seeing the emergence of China on the world stage in geopolitical terms as well
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #38  
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,794
    Quote Originally Posted by angelYNWA View Post
    are you really saying that a Democrat not winning in GEORGIA! was such a shock? The fact that a crimson red state like that was even in play shows how weak the Republicans are, It would be like the Tories almost winning in Liverpool.

    Previous Georgia elections have had Republicans win with at least a 20point majority, now it's less than 4. Looks strong and stable to me...
    4 in a row, 3 of them not Georgia. Trump in charge. Whatever their campaign plans are they're not good enough. If they'd turned that vote Trump would've become a risk to the Republicans. Opportunity gone.

    My understanding is they played 'nice' while the republicans played 'hard'. Centrist. I suspect there's an element of that 4+ points that would be amenable to a Bernie set of policies. In the absence of which, they support that part of trump that promises the same. But won't deliver.

    It seems obvious to me. Certainly worth a go. So why don't the Dems head down that road? What or who's stopping them? If not their sponsors then who? what?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #39  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    3,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortigen View Post
    US, like any country in the world, will do whatever it has the resources to do. There is nothing America has done now or in the past 60-70 years that another country in its position wouldn't do. It is every country's "business" to look after its interests and to expand its influence as much as it can. That ambition is only curtailed by the availability of resources and the strength of the resistance against it.
    Completely agree, but the problem with the article you posted is that it doesn't have that thoughtful line of reasoning behind it. Everything happens in context, unfortunately journalism doesn't bother covering it anymore. Like I have mentioned before, there is a fascinating documentary called Hypernormalisation which goes into detail about how Western politicians and press, in the 90s, deliberately shifted to a dumbed down version of politics for the masses. Up until that point, it was quite common for people to acknowledge that foreign policy especially was a complex beast, not necessarily all right and wrong, now all that is pushed is the good v bad line.

    And its obvious people are falling for it. Look at the huge simplification of the Ukraine crisis posters rushed to push out when Coach raised the issue he did, completely ignoring the western role and how a general with a tiny minority managed to get magically armed to the hilt to stage acoup, not supported by 90% of the ethnic Russians in the area. Or the installation of missile launch systems surrounding the Russian border, or the fact there is more troops sitting on their western front than at any time since WWII. These aren't excuses, but are complexities that a good article would mention. Or any discussion on Russia should have.

    The article you posted was a laughably American version of the Ukraine situation. No complication, just a big bad Russia looming as a huge threat to the world. Reading it would be the equivalent of reading an RT article on the US election, and what would you say if I posted it and said it was a "good version of what happened last year"?

    You are right that as a government the US is doing what others would do in their situation. I would just expect, well hope, a supposed "free and balanced" press would not stick their noses up the governments backside and do their propaganda bidding for them.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #40  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortigen View Post
    US, like any country in the world, will do whatever it has the resources to do. There is nothing America has done now or in the past 60-70 years that another country in its position wouldn't do. It is every country's "business" to look after its interests and to expand its influence as much as it can. That ambition is only curtailed by the availability of resources and the strength of the resistance against it.
    When you live in a capitalist world that is all about expansion, growing profits, wealth, capital growth, resource growth that could well be true. It doesn't matter though. Do you think I give any weight to the line 'if I weren't doing it somebody else would' like that's an excuse.

    In a rotten, corrupt, capitalist system, I fully expect the worst most rotten, corrupt leaders to reach the top. The fact the U.S is the most aggressive, war mongering nation on the planet I would like to attribute to the system of capitalism, expansion and the capitalist corporate election model promoting the worst leaders.

    What I didn't expect some years back but now I am becoming increasingly expectant of are the population. Angel without a clue what's going on in the Ukraine (it's a deeply complex matter) has already assumed the U.S are entitled to go in, assist regime change, place troops on Russian borders and flare up tensions whilst simultaneously inviting NATO (an anti-Russian military alliance)...................and then call Russia the aggressor.

    That's the part I don't understand. How a citizen (not even American) can believe this is correct behaviour. Now I don't agree with Jared here I don't think it's every countries business to look after its interest if those interests are in another country across the other side of the world.

    Essentially what you're saying is the U.S is entitled to look at its interests (in which case America considers the entire globe its interests) so you are essentially defending US rights to do whatever it wants anywhere in the world if it benefits the U.S. Which frankly I find appalling.

    I expect evil, thoughtless, immoral ideologies from those promoted through the system but from the general population it absolutely astounds me. Think of all the children murdered in Iraq, Syria, think of the brutal regimes the US and UK supported, decades of torment and abuse with our consent. All because of our 'interests' and that's my frustration.

    You talk like this is some economic theory from a book with absolutely no emotional connection to the harm and pain your defending as every country looking after their interests. Let me ask you a couple of questions.

    It was absolutely in US interests to have slavery. Is that ok? One final question. These 'interests' that America is taking of 'business' globally. Who is benefiting? Are the lives of the general population improving? The economic vision for the future is it rosy? So as the US controls more and more governments around the world killing, bombing, changing regimes who is benefiting?
    Last edited by Coach791; 22-6-17 at 11:29.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #41  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    3,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    Now I don't agree with Jared here I don't think it's every countries business to look after its interest if those interests are in another country across the other side of the world.
    I don't believe its right, I unfortunately believe its the way it is. The only way to break this cycle would be for the top honcho, in this case America, to put its selfish expansionist and aggressive aims to one side and act as a true peacekeeper - get involved only when others are aggressive. That isn't the case at the moment, as much as people want to tell themselves the Middle East, Russia, Ukraine, South America are acts of the US on the defensive for the betterment of the rest of us, its quite clear they are in fact the instigator, whether overtly or by stealth, in most cases.

    So yes, the US is doing what others have done in the past. Vortigen seems happy accepting thats the way it is, I would much rather call them out on it, on their actions, their propaganda, and strive for a better world. I'm also not stupid enough to fall for good versus evil arguments and Russia as some menacing boogeyman.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #42  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    I don't believe its right, I unfortunately believe its the way it is. The only way to break this cycle would be for the top honcho, in this case America, to put its selfish expansionist and aggressive aims to one side and act as a true peacekeeper - get involved only when others are aggressive. That isn't the case at the moment, as much as people want to tell themselves the Middle East, Russia, Ukraine, South America are acts of the US on the defensive for the betterment of the rest of us, its quite clear they are in fact the instigator, whether overtly or by stealth, in most cases.

    So yes, the US is doing what others have done in the past. Vortigen seems happy accepting thats the way it is, I would much rather call them out on it, on their actions, their propaganda, and strive for a better world. I'm also not stupid enough to fall for good versus evil arguments and Russia as some menacing boogeyman.
    The first decision I like to make is 'is this right or wrong?' and if I believe it is wrong than i'll never accept it. I don't consider law, I don't consider what's 'normal' or majority I look at my values and ask do I think this is right?

    It is an increasing phenomenon in America everybody thinks they are Perry Mason. The basic question is very simply is it morally right to murder and bomb nations (amongst the many other things) if it benefits the wealth and power of that nation? Of course not.

    However well let's look at the technicalities of international law (which US breaches daily anyway) and lets assess see if we can find a model to rationalise irrational and evil behaviour. Can we use the if we didn't do it everybody else would? Not accepted in court but somehow accepted in US minds. Can we talk about the technicalities and articles of the UN for military aggression? I know i'll let the FBI or President tell me what is good and just and if it is acceptable.

    The whole US population have been convinced that if something happens enough it is normal. This process of normalisation just freaks me out. I don't know any human who believes it is normal to look at the world and say ok my economic interests are these. That person in another town has some things that would benefit my situation. I will go there kill him and ransack his resources. Then consider that normal.

    Some people do it. They're criminalised. It's this notion that 'America' (which doesn't exist) should look after its interests by committing terrible crimes globally. There is no America. It's a bunch of rich, powerful people using peasants to go and get resources for them or change regimes.

    We have an image of Vikings landing and running wild, arriving smashing, taking what they wanted. Now the Vikings would plunder for themselves and share the winnings between those who fought.

    However we now have a system where peasants fights. They put on fantastic looking uniforms. we're told to focus on their skill, bravery, love of a fictional notion of America. They will not kill with barbarism but pinpoint accuracy, yes technology. Ohhh there's a lovely film about a horrific murdering sniper called American Sniper he's a hero. Then these soldiers come home but guess what with no spoils, applause but no spoils.

    In a few years most will be ill, homeless or destitute. the men not brave enough to fight who took the spoils turn their backs on them. Or worse still like Trump will ransack their own populations wealth and prosperity.

    Which system is more barbaric and cruel?

    So I would ask again what on earth doe 'looking after America's interests' actually mean?
    Last edited by Coach791; 22-6-17 at 12:08.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #43  
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    The first decision I like to make is 'is this right or wrong?' and if I believe it is wrong than i'll never accept it. I don't consider law, I don't consider what's 'normal' or majority I look at my values and ask do I think this is right?

    It is an increasing phenomenon in America everybody thinks they are Perry Mason. The basic question is very simply is it morally right to murder and bomb nations (amongst the many other things) if it benefits the wealth and power of that nation? Of course not.

    However well let's look at the technicalities of international law (which US breaches daily anyway) and lets assess see if we can find a model to rationalise irrational and evil behaviour. Can we use the if we didn't do it everybody else would? Not accepted in court but somehow accepted in US minds. Can we talk about the technicalities and articles of the UN for military aggression? I know i'll let the FBI or President tell me what is good and just and if it is acceptable.

    The whole US population have been convinced that if something happens enough it is normal. This process of normalisation just freaks me out. I don't know any human who believes it is normal to look at the world and say ok my economic interests are these. That person in another town has some things that would benefit my situation. I will go there kill him and ransack his resources. Then consider that normal.

    Some people do it. They're criminalised. It's this notion that 'America' (which doesn't exist) should look after its interests by committing terrible crimes globally. There is no America. It's a bunch of rich, powerful people using peasants to go and get resources for them or change regimes.

    We have an image of Vikings landing and running wild, arriving smashing, taking what they wanted. Now the Vikings would plunder for themselves and share the winnings between those who fought.

    However we now have a system where peasants fights. They put on fantastic looking uniforms. we're told to focus on their skill, bravery, love of a fictional notion of America. They will not kill with barbarism but pinpoint accuracy, yes technology. Ohhh there's a lovely film about a horrific murdering sniper called American Sniper he's a hero. Then these soldiers come home but guess what with no spoils, applause but no spoils.

    In a few years most will be ill, homeless or destitute. the men not brave enough to fight who took the spoils turn their backs on them. Or worse still like Trump will ransack their own populations wealth and prosperity.

    Which system is more barbaric and cruel?

    So I would ask again what on earth doe 'looking after America's interests' actually mean?
    You aren't unique in weighing the morality of these things. I would hope most normal human beings do the same. But morality does not exist when it comes to international politics. Nations are not bound by any moral codes. It is difficult to say whether things were better or worse historically because there is no such a thing as a perfect historical record. There may have been a certain code of "honor" that applied here and there throughout history, but I don't know if people suffered less because of it. Whatever the case may be, I don't believe anything of the sort exists today.

    As such, evaluating foreign relations from a strictly moral perspective is unfortunately meaningless in a practical sense. We can talk about it academically but we cannot go out and elect a government who will say "You know, we've got enough wealth. Let someone else have some." That just does not exist and probably cannot exist in a human world.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #44  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortigen View Post
    You aren't unique in weighing the morality of these things. I would hope most normal human beings do the same. But morality does not exist when it comes to international politics. Nations are not bound by any moral codes. It is difficult to say whether things were better or worse historically because there is no such a thing as a perfect historical record. There may have been a certain code of "honor" that applied here and there throughout history, but I don't know if people suffered less because of it. Whatever the case may be, I don't believe anything of the sort exists today.

    As such, evaluating foreign relations from a strictly moral perspective is unfortunately meaningless in a practical sense.
    We can talk about it academically but we cannot go out and elect a government who will say "You know, we've got enough wealth. Let someone else have some." That just does not exist and probably cannot exist in a human world.
    Can a country think? No. There is no such thing as the United States of America. It doesn't exist. It's a fictional creation. Of course a nation cannot be bound by a moral code because there is no such thing as a 'nation' acting as a single entity.

    What you then have is a few controlling the many. Making laws, giving orders, creating foreign policy. If you accept the decisions of the few as absolute on a practical level that is your choice. What do you know what can exist in the human world? Do you think growing up in this one constant system you could possibly imagine the realms of possibility of humanity.

    If you accept murder, theft of resources, to benefit a few in your country as the choice of a 'nation' then you have become morally complicit in the crime. Even the statement 'morality doesn't exist in international politics' is insane. That's supposed to be the whole point of politics. To govern responsibly for the population.

    For any change to take place the first thing you must do is say this is wrong. The second is you spread that message and you stop voting for those that do wrong. I accept there's no real choice in politics. However if enough people say this is wrong then trust me a political leader will emerge and find support.

    Or you can just accept that international politics is now piracy for the wealth of the U.S and be complicit in this system continuing unopposed.

    It's your choice.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #45  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,844
    Quote Originally Posted by angelYNWA View Post
    I'm not American. But I see you didn't actually answer any of the points in my last post about the Budapest Memorandum and with Russia invading countries on its border.

    If the US invaded Canada or Mexico I think it might be an issue around the world, don't you?
    If Russia instigated a coup in Mexico and placed Russian puppets in charge do you imagine the US would not react?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #46  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,844
    Quote Originally Posted by paul143 View Post
    If it is anything less than this I am going to count that as a win.

    https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=s4VlruVG81w
    Paul your youtube links never work.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #47  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortigen View Post
    I honestly couldn't give any less of a **** about what's a threat to Russia.
    Perhaps that is part of the problem.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #48  
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortigen View Post
    US, like any country in the world, will do whatever it has the resources to do. There is nothing America has done now or in the past 60-70 years that another country in its position wouldn't do. It is every country's "business" to look after its interests and to expand its influence as much as it can. That ambition is only curtailed by the availability of resources and the strength of the resistance against it.
    How about 72 years ago?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #49  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by rhoscoch View Post
    Perhaps that is part of the problem.
    That's the incredible irony. US population says it couldn't care less about their troops being on Russian borders, changing regimes in Ukraine, inviting Ukraine into anti Russian military coalitions (all severe acts of aggression) and then scream when they hear a rumour Russians hacked some emails and exposed DNC corruption.

    It's almost mind blowing to see this mentality play out.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #50  
    lfcstlouis is online now Caution advised, may not be actual saint
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Luises-Finger View Post
    4 in a row, 3 of them not Georgia. Trump in charge. Whatever their campaign plans are they're not good enough. If they'd turned that vote Trump would've become a risk to the Republicans. Opportunity gone.

    My understanding is they played 'nice' while the republicans played 'hard'. Centrist. I suspect there's an element of that 4+ points that would be amenable to a Bernie set of policies. In the absence of which, they support that part of trump that promises the same. But won't deliver.

    It seems obvious to me. Certainly worth a go. So why don't the Dems head down that road? What or who's stopping them? If not their sponsors then who? what?
    Kansas is as red as they come as well. That one was close.

    Republicans have dumped ton's of money into these races, when previously they didn't even both. Hell, twice in the past 15 years, the seat in Georgia the Republican ran unopposed.

    While I agree that in todays polarized world, centrists have little chance in the Dem party. Also, Republicans are doing everything they can to stop the vote. They know that's their only chance.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #51  
    lfcstlouis is online now Caution advised, may not be actual saint
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    That's the incredible irony. US population says it couldn't care less about their troops being on Russian borders, changing regimes in Ukraine, inviting Ukraine into anti Russian military coalitions (all severe acts of aggression) and then scream when they hear a rumour Russians hacked some emails and exposed DNC corruption.

    It's almost mind blowing to see this mentality play out.
    'Anti-Russian military coalition' You mean NATO
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #52  
    Acumen is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    46,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Luises-Finger View Post
    So Ossoff lost. 4th loss in a row for the centrist Dems, I believe.

    The Dems aren't learning the lessons. Do corporates donate to the Dems and dictate their campaigns, to make sure the lessons aren't learnt? i.e. Make sure republicans win?

    With everything going on in Washington, this should've be an open goal. Maybe a more aggressive campaign could've bridged the 4 points.
    Ossoff stood a better chance in the first go around.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #53  
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,930
    Quote Originally Posted by rhoscoch View Post
    Perhaps that is part of the problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    That's the incredible irony. US population says it couldn't care less about their troops being on Russian borders, changing regimes in Ukraine, inviting Ukraine into anti Russian military coalitions (all severe acts of aggression) and then scream when they hear a rumour Russians hacked some emails and exposed DNC corruption.

    It's almost mind blowing to see this mentality play out.
    I do not live in Russia. No one I know lives in Russia. I have no reason to care about what Russia perceives as a threat. I would feel bad if innocent Russian people were killed in an act of aggression by another country but that isn't happening. Most innocent Russians these days are dying at the hands of their own government. I am also not disputing Russia's right to defend itself nor am I critical of its attacks on Ukraine or any other country.

    On the other hand, although I live abroad for much of the time, my "home" is in America. Naturally, I care about how seriously that country takes cyber warfare. Right now, the US does not have anything approaching a defensive doctrine when it comes to cyber attacks by foreign powers. There isn't a coherent policy in place to prevent or detect such attacks. What's more, the Administration in power does not appear at all bothered by this. It is entirely normal that a rational person should be troubled by that.

    There isn't anything "mind-blowing" about wanting one's home country to be secure.

    Oh, and once again, it's not about the emails. I have never once "screamed" or otherwise expressed outrage over the DNC leaks.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #54  
    lfcstlouis is online now Caution advised, may not be actual saint
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24,207
    Trump, who lied to the American people about 'tapes' of Comey conversation, prompted Comey to release the memo's which only furthered the investigation... masterclass strategy.

    Also, the healthcare bill will kill people and give their money to the rich.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #55  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Vortigen View Post
    I do not live in Russia. No one I know lives in Russia. I have no reason to care about what Russia perceives as a threat. I would feel bad if innocent Russian people were killed in an act of aggression by another country but that isn't happening. Most innocent Russians these days are dying at the hands of their own government. I am also not disputing Russia's right to defend itself nor am I critical of its attacks on Ukraine or any other country.

    On the other hand, although I live abroad for much of the time, my "home" is in America. Naturally, I care about how seriously that country takes cyber warfare. Right now, the US does not have anything approaching a defensive doctrine when it comes to cyber attacks by foreign powers. There isn't a coherent policy in place to prevent or detect such attacks. What's more, the Administration in power does not appear at all bothered by this. It is entirely normal that a rational person should be troubled by that.

    There isn't anything "mind-blowing" about wanting one's home country to be secure.

    Oh, and once again, it's not about the emails. I have never once "screamed" or otherwise expressed outrage over the DNC leaks.
    Trust me your opinion is mind blowing. You talk about the US your home being safe. However you absolutely defend the US to threaten Russia with missiles pointed at them, troops on the border, pushing for regime change in Ukraine and arming them whilst inviting them into an anti Russian coalition.

    That's absolutely mind blowing that you believe it is absolutely fine for the US to threaten Russia because you don't live in Russia but you cry like a baby at a few 'possibly' Russian leaked emails. That is absolutely mind blowing.

    Basically your opinion is wherever YOU LIVE can do absolutely whatever it wants to anywhere else but they dare not peek at your emails. It's utterly insane. Your morality is based on well whatever suits wherever I live.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #56  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by lfcstlouis View Post
    'Anti-Russian military coalition' You mean NATO
    I think most people here know NATO was started as an anti Russia military coalition and hence understood what I meant. In fact I'd be surprised if anybody didn't know I was referring to NATO.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #57  
    lfcstlouis is online now Caution advised, may not be actual saint
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    I think most people here know NATO was started as an anti Russia military coalition and hence understood what I meant. In fact I'd be surprised if anybody didn't know I was referring to NATO.
    Then just say NATO.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #58  
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    29,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    I think most people here know NATO was started as an anti Russia military coalition and hence understood what I meant. In fact I'd be surprised if anybody didn't know I was referring to NATO.
    Just as the Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #59  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by lfcstlouis View Post
    Then just say NATO.
    No. I say whatever I want to say. If I wish to remind people NATO was originally made as a coalition against Russia I will do that.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #60  
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,745
    Quote Originally Posted by angelYNWA View Post
    Just as the Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact?
    Absolutely and if Russia were on US borders with missiles pointed at the U.S along with allies from the Warsaw Pact I would say that were aggressive also.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •